Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38619084›Full record

SynthesisInternational wound journal2024

Prevalence of multidrug-resistant bacterial infections in diabetic foot ulcers: A meta-analysis.

Shaoling Yang, Liye Hu, Yue Zhao, Guangzhe Meng, Sijia Xu, Rui Han

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. IJID regions · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Characterization and Genomic Analysis of a New BacteriophageAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shaoling YangDepartment of Endocrinology, The Bethune International Peace Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Liye HuDepartment of Endocrinology, The Bethune International Peace Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Yue ZhaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Gucheng County Hospital of Hebei Province, Gucheng, China.
Guangzhe MengDepartment of Endocrinology, The Bethune International Peace Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Sijia XuDepartment of Endocrinology, The Bethune International Peace Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Rui HanDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Bethune International Peace Hospital · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Hebei Medical University · CNZoucheng People's Hospital · CN

Funding

Health Commission of Hebei Province 20240696
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections have become increasingly common in recent years due to the increased prevalence of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We carried out a meta-analysis aimed at investigating the prevalence of MDR bacteria isolated from DFUs and analysing the risk factors for MDR bacterial infection in patients with DFUs. The PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Scopus, and ProQuest databases were searched for studies published up to November 2023 on the clinical outcomes of MDR bacteria in DFUs. The main outcome was the prevalence of MDR bacteria in DFUs. A total of 21 studies were included, representing 4885 patients from which 2633 MDR bacterial isolates were obtained. The prevalence of MDR bacteria in DFUs was 50.86% (95% confidence interval (CI): 41.92%-59.78%). The prevalence of MDR gram-positive bacteria (GPB) in DFUs was 19.81% (95% CI: 14.35%-25.91%), and the prevalence of MDR gram-negative bacteria (GNB) in DFUs was 32.84% (95% CI: 26.40%-39.62%). MDR Staphylococcus aureus (12.13% (95% CI: 8.79%-15.91%)) and MDR Enterococcus spp. (3.33% (95% CI: 1.92%-5.07%)) were the main MDR-GPB in DFUs. MDR Escherichia coli, MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa, MDR Enterobacter spp., MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae, and MDR Proteus mirabilis were the main MDR-GNB in DFUs. The prevalence rates were 6.93% (95% CI: 5.15%-8.95%), 6.01% (95% CI: 4.03%-8.33%), 3.59% (95% CI: 0.42%-9.30%), 3.50% (95% CI: 2.31%-4.91%), and 3.27% (95% CI: 1.74%-5.21%), respectively. The clinical variables of diabetic foot ulcer patients infected with MDR bacteria and non-MDR bacteria in the included studies were analysed. The results showed that peripheral vascular disease, peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, osteomyelitis, Wagner's grade, previous hospitalization and previous use of antibacterial drugs were significantly different between the MDR bacterial group and the non-MDR bacterial group. We concluded that there is a high prevalence of MDR bacterial infections in DFUs. The prevalence of MDR-GNB was greater than that of MDR-GPB in DFUs. MDR S. aureus was the main MDR-GPB in DFUs, and MDR E. coli was the main MDR-GNB in DFUs. Our study also indicated that peripheral vascular disease, peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, osteomyelitis, Wagner's grade, previous hospitalization, and previous use of antibacterial drugs were associated with MDR bacterial infections in patients with DFUs.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsDiabetic FootDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleGram-Negative BacteriaHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceRisk FactorsAnti-Bacterial Agentsdiabetic foot ulcersMDR bacteriaprevalencerisk factors

Identifiers

PMID38619084
PMCPMC11017433
OpenAlexW4394814372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.